Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mother’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a lady o two years of felony probation, fines and community service for voting her dead mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 normal election.

But the decide rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold those committing voter fraud accountable.

The case in opposition to Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is considered one of just a handful of voter fraud instances from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, regardless of widespread belief among many supporters of former President Donald Trump that there was widespread voter fraud that led to his loss in Arizona and other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court docket Decide Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the loss of her mom and had no intent to influence the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I would like to apologize,” McKee told LaBianca. “I don’t need to make the excuse for my habits. What I did was flawed and I’m ready to simply accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, were registered Republicans, although she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Lawyer Normal Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his workplace the place she said there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mom’s poll.

“The one technique to stop voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a poll,” McKee informed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for positive. I mean, there’s no manner to make sure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do consider there was numerous voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s lawyer, pointed to dozens of circumstances of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s ballot, and mentioned nobody got jail time in those instances. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would raise constitutional issues of equity.

“Simply stated, over a long time frame, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, nobody on this state for similar circumstances, in related context ... no person received jail time,” Henze mentioned. “The court docket didn’t impose jail time at all.”

But Lawson said jail time was essential as a result of the kind of case has modified. While in years past, most circumstances involved folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in both states, within the 2020 election people had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re listening to is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the judge. “And basically what we’re seeing right here is somebody who says ‘Properly, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s a big drawback and I’m simply going to slip in under the radar. And I’m going to do it as a result of everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he mentioned. “And I feel the angle you hear in the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite circumstances.”

LaBianca stated that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she wanted: going after people who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence could also be referred to as for, the court might order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “However the file here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it may be for somebody like the defendant to attack the legitimacy of our free elections without any evidence, besides your individual fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful so far as I do know,” the judge continued.